ArticleThe journal of physical chemistry. B2012
Limiting values of the 15N chemical shift of the imidazole ring of histidine at high pH.
Article in The journal of physical chemistry. B, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-Cell Quantification of Drugs by Magic-Angle Spinning Dynamic Nuclear Polarization NMR.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2022Article
- Outline of an experimental design aimed to detect a protein A mirror image in solution.PeerJ physical chemistry · 2019Article
- A comprehensive analysis of the computed tautomer fractions of the imidazole ring of histidines in Loligo vulgaris.Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics · 2018Article
- Limiting Values of the one-bond C-H Spin-Spin Coupling Constants of the Imidazole Ring of Histidine at High-pH.Journal of molecular structure · 2017Article
- Helix-Capping Histidines: Diversity of N-H···N Hydrogen Bond Strength Revealed by (2h)JNN Scalar Couplings.Biochemistry · 2015Article
- Introduction of a covalent histidine-heme linkage in a hemoglobin: a promising tool for heme protein engineering.Journal of inorganic biochemistry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Tautomeric identification by direct observation of (15)N chemical shifts of the imidazole ring of histidine (His) has become a common practice in NMR spectroscopy. However, such applications require knowledge of the "canonical" limiting values of the (15)N chemical shift of the imidazole ring of His in which each form of His, namely, the protonated (H(+)) and the tautomeric N(ε2)-H and N(δ1)-H forms, respectively, is present to the extent of 100%. So far, the adopted canonical limiting values of the (15)N chemical shift have been those available from model compounds. Whether these canonical values reflect those of the individual pure forms of His is investigated here by carrying out an analysis of the second-order shielding differences, ΔΔ = |Δ(ε) - Δ(δ) |, with Δ(ξ) (ξ = ε or δ) being the density functional theory (DFT)-computed average shielding differences between the two nitrogens of the imidazole ring of His in each pure tautomeric form. In the high-pH limit, the results indicate that (i) the ΔΔ values from the DFT-computed shielding, but not from the commonly used canonical limiting values, are in closer agreement with those obtained with experimental chemical shift data from model compounds in solution and solid-state NMR; and (ii) the commonly used canonical limiting values of the (15)N chemical shifts lead to an average tautomeric equilibrium constant that differs by a factor of ∼2.6 from the one computed by using DFT-based (15)N limiting values, raising concern about the practice of using canonical limiting (15)N values. This can be avoided by reporting tautomeric equilibrium constants computed by using only limiting (15)N values for the N(ε2)-H tautomer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.